International reactions to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster


The international reaction to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has been diverse and widespread. Many inter-governmental agencies responded to the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders included International Atomic Energy Agency, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, which has radiation detection equipment deployed around the world.
In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power". Many countries have advised their nationals to leave Tokyo, citing the risk associated with the nuclear plants' ongoing accident. Nonetheless, estimates of radioactivity leakage into the Pacific Ocean remain modest with National Geographic reporting the leakage of approximately 0.3 Tbq per month of both 137Cs and 134Cs. 0.3 TBq is equal to 1/40th of the natural radiation in one km3 of seawater and 1/50000000000th of the total natural radioactivity in the oceans. Following the Fukushima I accidents, The Economist reported that the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.
Germany accelerated plans to close all of its old nuclear power reactors and to phase the rest out entirely by 2022. The policy is controversial leading to electricity twice the price of that in neighbouring France. Der Spiegel reported that German Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel admitted that "exiting nuclear and coal-fired power generation at the same time would not be possible". In Italy there was a national referendum, in which 94 percent voted against the governments plan to build new nuclear power plants.
Elsewhere in the world, nuclear power continues to be discussed in Malaysia, and plans are well-advanced in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bangladesh. China briefly paused its nuclear development program, but has since restarted it. China plans to treble its nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.

Nuclear industry

According to Areva's Southeast Asia and Oceania director, Selena Ng, Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster is "a huge wake-up call for a nuclear industry that hasn't always been sufficiently transparent about safety issues". She said "There was a sort of complacency before Fukushima and I don't think we can afford to have that complacency now".
In September 2011, German engineering giant Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, and said that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company's chairman, Peter Löscher, said that "Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades". Siemens is to boost its work in the renewable energy sector.

Regulatory agencies

Many inter-governmental agencies are responding, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders include International Atomic Energy Agency, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, which has radiation detection equipment deployed around the world.
Some scientists say that the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents have revealed that the nuclear industry lacks sufficient oversight, leading to renewed calls to redefine the mandate of the IAEA so that it can better police nuclear power plants worldwide. There are several problems with the IAEA says Najmedin Meshkati of University of Southern California:

It recommends safety standards, but member states are not required to comply; it promotes nuclear energy, but it also monitors nuclear use; it is the sole global organization overseeing the nuclear energy industry, yet it is also weighed down by checking compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The journal Nature has reported that the IAEA response to the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan was "sluggish and sometimes confusing", drawing calls for the agency to "take a more proactive role in nuclear safety". But nuclear experts say that the agency's complicated mandate and the constraints imposed by its member states mean that reforms will not happen quickly or easily, although its INES "emergency scale is very likely to be revisited" given the confusing way in which it was used in Japan.
Russian nuclear opponent Iouli Andreev was critical of the response to Fukushima, and says that the IAEA did not learn from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. He has accused the IAEA and corporations of "wilfully ignoring lessons from the world's worst nuclear accident 25 years ago to protect the industry's expansion". The IAEA's role "as an advocate for nuclear power has made it a target for protests".
One of the IAEA statutory functions is to establish safety standards to protect the health, life and property in the use of nuclear power. When reports of the damaged nuclear power plants at Fukushima emerged, many countries looked immediately to the IAEA for more information. But its initial reports provided scant and at times contradictory information from Japanese sources and it took a week for the IAEA to dispatch a team to Japan to gather more facts on the ground. While the IAEA has stated that it was hampered by lack of official information from Japan, this "has nonetheless prompted analysts to question the efficacy of the Agency". Olli Heinonen has said that "Fukushima should be a wake-up call to re-evaluate and strengthen the role of the IAEA in boosting nuclear safety, including its response mechanism".
On 28 March 2011, at a special briefing on the Fukshima nuclear accidents held for IAEA Member States, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano announced that a high-level IAEA Conference on Nuclear Safety should take place in Vienna.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Japan "underestimated the danger of tsunamis and failed to prepare adequate backup systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant". This repeated a widely held criticism in Japan that "collusive ties between regulators and industry led to weak oversight and a failure to ensure adequate safety levels at the plant". The IAEA also said that the Fukushima disaster exposed the lack of adequate backup systems at the plant. Once power was completely lost, critical functions like the cooling system shut down. Three of the reactors "quickly overheated, causing meltdowns that eventually led to explosions, which hurled large amounts of radioactive material into the air".
On 30 March, Denis Flory, IAEA deputy director general and head of the agency's nuclear safety and security department, said readings from soil samples collected in Iitate indicate that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded there. On 31 March, In response to the IAEA, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Thursday the government may implement measures, if necessary, such as urging people living in the area to evacuate, if it is found that the contaminated soil will have a long-term effect on human health. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, told a press conference in the afternoon that the agency's rough estimates have shown there is no need for people in Iitate to evacuate immediately under criteria set by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan. The Japanese government declined recommendation of IAEA.
In April 2011, representatives from dozens of countries met in Austria to scrutinize safety at each other's power plants with the aim of avoiding accidents such as the Japanese nuclear crisis. The meeting was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and focused on the Convention on Nuclear Safety that came into being in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster.
On 12 April 2011, the IAEA reported that the nuclear accident at Fukushima I is now rated as a Level 7 "major accident" on the INES scale. Level 7 is the most serious level on INES and is used to describe an event consisting of "a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures." Over the previous month, some scientists in the United States and the head of France's Nuclear Safety Authority argued that the accident was, at that time, already worse than the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, which was rated a 5.
Following the Fukushima I accidents, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.
In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power".

Non-government organizations

Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear spoke to the World Socialist Web Site on 19 March 2011. Gunter stated that the disaster could not be called an accident because it was the outcome of a "gamble has been going on since the dawn of the nuclear age". She also voiced concern over Fukushima-style reactors operating in the United States. Beyond Nuclear began a campaign to shut these reactors down on 13 April 2011.
The World Future Council issued a "Statement on the Japanese Nuclear Disaster" on 29 March 2011, supported by many Right Livelihood Award Laureates. It said that the disaster in Japan has demonstrated the limits of human capability to keep dangerous technologies free from accidents with catastrophic results:

The conclusion we draw from the nuclear power plant accident in Japan is that the human community, acting for itself and as trustees for future generations, must exercise a far higher level of care globally in dealing with technologies capable of causing mass annihilation, and should phase out, abolish and replace such technologies with alternatives that do not threaten present and future generations. This applies to nuclear weapons as well as to nuclear power reactors.

Citing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, environmental activists at a U.N. meeting in April 2011 "urged bolder steps to tap renewable energy so the world doesn't have to choose between the dangers of nuclear power and the ravages of climate change".
Some shipping lines restricted their ships from calling on the Tokyo Bay ports of Tokyo and Yokohama over radiation concerns. Vessels risk facing extra delays for checks at subsequent destinations if they pick up even trace contamination.

Greenpeace

Greenpeace sent radiology experts to the villages of Iitate and Tsushima in the Fukushima Prefecture. They found levels up to 100 μSv/h in the village of Iitate, and based on that, recommended that the government widen the 20 km no-go zone, which Iitate lies outside of, to at least 30 km. An official of the NSA said that high radioactivity levels detected by the NGO could not be considered reliable, although some members of Greenpeace stressed that their numbers corresponded in other areas. The New York Times called the reporting by Greenpeace a "guarded endorsement to the radiation data published by the Japanese government", due to the general correspondence between the numbers. Members of Greenpeace stressed that there has been distrust of the official data, and that their contention was not the radiation levels, but the action that was taken.

Financial markets

As a result of the accidents, stock prices of many energy companies reliant on nuclear sources and listed on stock exchanges have dropped, while renewable energy companies have increased dramatically in value. In Germany, demand for renewable energy has increased among private consumers.
Funds that invested in companies tied to renewable energy, clean technology, the oil industry and other natural resources rose 13.7% in the first three months of 2011, "benefiting from turmoil in the oil-rich Middle East and the anti-nuclear sentiment after the accident in Japan".

Actions and recommendations related to the Fukushima disaster

Evacuation from Tokyo and Japan

On 14 March, France became the first country to advise its nationals to leave Tokyo, citing a probable large aftershock in the Kanto area and the risk associated with the nuclear plants' ongoing accidents.
Embassies of other countries, including UK, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Kenya, Israel repeated similar advice in the following days.
German, Austrian, Finnish and Bulgarian embassies were temporarily relocated in southern parts of Japan. Russian authorities were reported on 15 March to be ready to evacuate the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, if needed. On 12 April, the Philippines government announced that they would pay for the repatriation of any Filipinos living in the evacuation zone.
On 16 March, Voice of America reported that the US Embassy in Tokyo had advised Americans to evacuate to at least 80 km from the plant, or to stay indoors. US officials have concluded that the Japanese warnings have been insufficient, and that, deliberately or not, they have understated the potential threat of what is taking place inside the nuclear facility, according to The New York Times. Gregory Jaczko, the chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, earlier said he believed that all the water in the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 had boiled dry, leaving fuel rods stored there exposed. "We believe that radiation levels are extremely high, which could possibly impact the ability to take corrective measures," he told a Congressional committee. United States government officials moved to allay fears of nuclear fallout, stating that people do not need to take or stockpile potassium iodide pills, after a spike in calls from the West Coast to health hotlines, and runs at pharmacies with people buying the iodine tablets on the Pacific Coast.

Potassium Iodide

A number of embassies in Tokyo, including Australia, France, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States issued potassium iodide tablets as a precautionary measure to their citizens and immediate family members. On 20 March, Swedish citizens in Tokyo were recommended to begin taking potassium iodide as a precautionary measure. This recommendation was lifted on 29 March.
Due to a run on potassium iodide tablets in pharmacies in Western Canada, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, issued statements on 15 March of reassurance that Canada was not at risk from the fallout, and that taking the iodine tablets was unnecessary. British Columbia's health officer Dr. Perry Kendall, urged residents not to stockpile the tablets.
On 17 March, the United States newsmagazine Time reported on the Southern Californian residents reaction to the risk from the fallout, and the run on iodine tablets. On 18 March, France was reported to be shipping iodide tablets to French Polynesia as a preventative measure, in light of the fallout cloud drifting across the Pacific.

Requests and offers for help

The Japanese government and Tokyo Electric asked France's Areva to provide technical assistance in the process of removing radioactive water from the nuclear power facility.
On 16 March, Korea was reported to be sending boron for the production of boric acid to dampen fission reactions.
A Ukrainian group of specialists who were involved in the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster proposed liquid metal cooling with a low-melting and chemically neutral metal, such as tin, to cool the fuel rods even if they are molten or damaged. A team of Ukrainian nuclear specialists was reported on 17 March to be ready to fly out to realize this.
The United States launched Operation Tomodachi to assist the Japanese in their recovery.
Three days after the earthquake, the U.S. Department of Energy in cooperation with the NNSA sent 33 people and 8.6 tons of equipment to Japan to assist efforts to monitor radiation, including consequence management response teams and a NNSA aerial system that took thousands of radiation readings over the next two weeks.

Cleanup

International experts have said that a workforce in the hundreds or even thousands would take years or decades to clean up the area. John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear Corporation, has said that it "might be 100 years before melting fuel rods can be safely removed from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant". Edward Morse, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, has said:

...there would be at least six months of emergency stabilisation, about two years of temporary remediation and up to 30 years of full-scale clean-up. Furthermore, the high levels of ground contamination at the site are raising concerns about the viability of individuals to work at the site in coming decades.

Other reactions

The Hong Kong Government issued a black outbound travel alert for Fukushima prefecture on 12 March urging to avoid all travel. The alert came in addition to the red outbound travel alert for the rest of Japan.
On 19 March 2011, Indonesia began screening passengers and luggage on direct flights from Japan for radiation. No radiation has been detected.
On 16 March, Swedish citizens were advised to avoid staying within 80 km of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, and all travel to Japan was advised against. On 29 March the travel advice eased to only apply to non-necessary travel.
The South Korea Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute operates 59 radiation monitoring centers across the nation of South Korea. After the Fukushima disaster begun, radiation monitoring activities increased across the country but radiation levels remained normal.

Protests and politics by country

Taiwan

In March 2011, around 2,000 anti-nuclear protesters demonstrated in Taiwan for an immediate halt to the construction of the island's fourth nuclear power plant. The protesters were also opposed to plans to extend the lifespan of three existing nuclear plants.
Amid Japan's ongoing nuclear crisis, nuclear energy is emerging as a contentious issue for next year's presidential election in Taiwan, as opposition leader Tsai Ing-wen declared her intention to abandon nuclear power by 2025 if elected. Taiwan is on the West Pacific Rim earthquake zone, like Japan.
George Hsu, a professor of applied economics at National Chung Hsing University in central Taiwan, said nuclear power plants in quake-prone areas need to be redesigned to make them more resistant, an investment that would reduce their original cost advantage.
In May 2011, 5,000 people joined an anti-nuclear protest in Taipei City, which was characterized by a carnival-like atmosphere, with protesters holding yellow banners and clutching sunflowers. This was part of a nationwide "No Nuke Action" protest, urging the government to stop construction of a Fourth Nuclear Plant and pursue a more sustainable energy policy.
On the eve of World Environment Day in June 2011, environmental groups demonstrated against Taiwan's nuclear power policy. The Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, together with 13 environmental groups and legislators, gathered in Taipei with banners that read: "I love Taiwan, not nuclear disasters". They protested against the nation's three operating nuclear power plants and the construction of a fourth plant. They also called for "all nuclear power plants to be thoroughly re-evaluated and shut down immediately if they fail to pass safety inspections". According to Wang To-far, economics professor at National Taipei University, "if a level-seven nuclear crisis were to happen in Taiwan, it would destroy the nation".

United States

What had been growing acceptance of nuclear power in the United States was eroded sharply following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, with public support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. dropping slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, according to a CBS News poll. Only 43 percent of those polled after the Fukushima nuclear emergency said they would approve building new power plants in the United States.
Activists who were involved in the U.S. anti-nuclear movement's emergence, suggest that Japan's nuclear crisis may rekindle an interest in the movement in the United States. The aim, they say, is "not just to block the Obama administration's push for new nuclear construction, but to convince Americans that existing plants pose dangers".
In March 2011, 600 people gathered for a weekend protest outside the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. The demonstration was held to show support for the thousands of Japanese people who are endangered by possible radiation from the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.
The New England region has a long history of anti-nuclear activism and 75 people held a State House rally on 6 April 2011, to "protest the region's aging nuclear plants and the increasing stockpile of radioactive spent fuel rods at them". The protest was held shortly before a State House hearing where legislators were scheduled to hear representatives of the region's three nuclear plants – Pilgrim in Plymouth, Vermont Yankee in Vernon, and Seabrook in New Hampshire—talk about the safety of their reactors in the light of the Japanese nuclear crisis. Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim have designs similar to the crippled Japanese nuclear plant.
The nuclear disaster in Japan is likely to have major effects on US energy policy, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Buffet said that the "United States was poised to move ahead with nuclear plans here, but the events in Japan derailed that".
In April 2011, Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility said that the United States should review its nuclear accident liability limits, in the light of the economic impacts of the Fukushima I nuclear disaster.
In December 2011, as Japan completed "step 2" of its control roadmap at Fukushima, U.S. NRC chairman Jaczko visited the plant and said afterwards "that there was no longer enough energy in the reactors at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant to produce an offsite release of radiation, but pointed out that a large cleanup task remained".

Other

;France
In France around 1,000 people took part in a protest against nuclear power in Paris on 20 March, and some 3,800 French and Germans demonstrated for the closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant on 8 April; a larger demonstration is expected on 25 April. Opinion polls on the topic indicated that 55% of the population were in favour of nuclear power in the days following Fukushima, but 57% against by the end of March.
;Germany
In March 2011, more than 200,000 people took part in anti-nuclear protests in four large German cities, on the eve of state elections. Organisers called it the biggest anti-nuclear demonstration the country has seen, with police estimating that 100,000 people turned out in Berlin alone. Hamburg, Munich and Cologne also saw big demonstrations. The New York Times reported that "most Germans have a deep-seated aversion to nuclear power, and the damage at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan has galvanized opposition".
After Japan's nuclear disaster, there was an all-time best state election result for the anti-nuclear Green Party in Germany in the Baden-Württemberg election on 27 March 2011. However, the Greens' rise in popularity, which began October 2010 in the polls, has also been attributed to the unanimous opposition to Stuttgart 21.
The CDU-led government under Chancellor Angela Merkel made an aboutface in their nuclear energy policy. In 2010 the Government had just prolonged the retention period of nuclear power plants which were scheduled to be phased out in 2021 by the nuclear phase-out plan of 2000. In light of the Fukushima disaster, the Government changed its mind:

A physicist by training and a former environment minister, Merkel understood what Fukushima meant. Germany has 17 reactors, providing 23 percent of the electrical power in the country and making it the sixth largest nuclear electricity producer in the world. The eight oldest reactors were taken off the grid within days of 3/11 and will not return to operation. In record time, what once was the most pro-nuclear German government in decades prepared comprehensive legislation to phase out the remaining nine reactors by 2022 at the latest, starting in 2015. In June, parliament overwhelmingly passed the law.

;India
In India, there has been rapid growth in energy use and there are plans to build the world's largest nuclear plant in Jaitapur, but anti-nuclear protests have intensified following the Fukushima crisis. On 18 April one man was shot and killed by police and eight were injured after protests against the planned Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project turned violent. Although protests have been ongoing for some years, they have gained greater prominence and support since Fukushima.
;Italy
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced in 2009 that Italy would go nuclear again after its four atomic power plants were shut down following a 1987 nationwide referendum. But in the wake of the Fukushima crisis, antinuclear rallies drawing thousands have erupted in Italy, and the Italian government has "decided on a one-year moratorium on its plans to revive nuclear power".
A further Italian nuclear power referendum was held on 13 June 2011 and the No vote won 94,05 %, leading to cancellation of future nuclear power plants planned during the previous years, and due to the Italian nuclear power referendum turn out being over 50%+1 of the Italian population creates a legally binding cancellation of future plants.
;Spain
In March 2011, hundreds of people took part in protests held across Spain to demand the closure of the country's six nuclear power stations, after Japan's nuclear accidents. Demonstrators, many with signs that read "No nuclear power, neither here nor in Japan", gathered in small groups in more than 30 cities, including Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Valencia.
;Sweden
A 2011 poll suggests that scepticism over nuclear power is growing in Sweden following Japan's nuclear crisis. 36 percent of respondents want to phase-out nuclear power, up from 15 percent in a similar survey two years ago.
;Switzerland
Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster "has entirely changed the energy debate in Switzerland". In May 2011, some 20,000 people turned out for Switzerland's largest anti-nuclear power demonstration in 25 years. Demonstrators marched peacefully near the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant, the oldest in Switzerland, which started operating 40 years ago. Days after the anti-nuclear rally, Cabinet decided to ban the building of new nuclear power reactors. The country's five existing reactors would be allowed to continue operating, but "would not be replaced at the end of their life span".
;TEPCO violates Human Rights
On 7 January 2014 the largest pension fund in The Netherlands announced, that it had sold all its investments in TEPCO, because the ABP found it unethical to invest in this company any longer. TEPCO was blamed for its conduct during and after the disaster. TEPCO had ignored the U.N. human rights, and had demonstrated that it had insufficient attention for public safety". There were insufficient measures to prevent environmental damage and it was impossible to move the company to different behavior. After all attempts of the ABP to change the attitude of the company had failed, all stock was sold in the first week of 2014.

Re-evaluation of existing nuclear energy programs

Overview

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its reactors and pledged to close the rest by 2022. The Italians have voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear. Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors. Japan's prime minister has called for a dramatic reduction in Japan's reliance on nuclear power. Taiwan's president did the same. Mexico has sidelined construction of 10 reactors in favor of developing natural-gas-fired plants. Belgium is considering phasing out its nuclear plants, perhaps as early as 2015.
China—nuclear power's largest prospective market—suspended approvals of new reactor construction while conducting a lengthy nuclear-safety review. Neighboring India, another potential nuclear boom market, has encountered effective local opposition, growing national wariness about foreign nuclear reactors, and a nuclear liability controversy that threatens to prevent new reactor imports. There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.
In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics and tougher, yet-to-be-determined, safety regulations. In 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.
France is, per capita, the world's most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it's locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power's electricity contribution by more than a third by 2025.

Africa

, an economics professor, has said that the biggest positive result of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster could be renewed public support for the commercialization of renewable energy technologies.
In 2011, London-based bank HSBC said: "With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency".
In 2011, Deutsche Bank analysts concluded that "the global impact of the Fukushima accident is a fundamental shift in public perception with regard to how a nation prioritizes and values its populations health, safety, security, and natural environment when determining its current and future energy pathways". As a consequence, "renewable energy will be a clear long-term winner in most energy systems, a conclusion supported by many voter surveys conducted over the past few weeks. At the same time, we consider natural gas to be, at the very least, an important transition fuel, especially in those regions where it is considered secure".
In September 2011, Mycle Schneider said that the Fukushima disaster can be understood as a unique chance "to get it right" on energy policy. "Germany – with its nuclear phase-out decision based on a highly successful renewable energy program – and Japan – having suffered a painful shock but possessing unique technical capacities and societal discipline – can be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift toward a truly sustainable, low-carbon and nuclear-free energy policy".